Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rhyfelwyr
Because the Queen is a widely popular and respected figure of national unity, whose position as monarch and head of state is codified in the UK's foundational documents.
So if the Queen was not popular and respected, then it would be ok to disrespect her? Uhhhhhh Congress, the President and the Supreme Court are codified in our foundational documents, we still respect the position while openly mocking the humans occupying those positions.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with changing attitudes, it is purely about allowing people to go about their lives peaceably. Also, although the idea that banning beliefs/behaviours merely pushes them underground and allows them to go unchallenged is often bandied about, its simply wrong. One case in point - the de-nazification of Germany, where heavy handed censorship worked in forcing a dramatic cultural change and successfully annihilated Nazi beliefs in the country.
Words are not violence. You may as well lock people up 5 years for throwing a loud house party. The de-nazification of Germany is a terrible example. They did not stop being nazi's because the Swastika was banned. The Nuremberg Trial and subsequent Israeli commandos systematically killed all upper echelons of the Nazi Party. Then the allied forces forcefully showed the German public the atrocities of the Holocaust by taking them to the camps and having them dig graves for the dead. Then what probably helped the most in de-nazification was the successful rebuilding of Germany post WW2 due to the Marshal Plan, since the conditions of the genesis of the Nazi Party were rampant poverty and a crippled economy.
Quote:
I don't think those billboard are acceptable, especially not in a public place where children will see them - so at least I'm consistent in my principles.
That's why I respect you.
Quote:
But your feelings are not representative of everybody else's. Most people, even in the Western world, would agree that there are certain contexts for certain material when freedom of speech should be restricted and are not comfortable with being exposed to the bile that is spouted from people from all walks of life.
No one's feelings are representative of everybody else's, thats my point. So why are we pretending that the ones who wish for restrictions are the true representatives that should have their viewed codified?
Quote:
That depends on the context. For political rallies etc, sure I agree to an extent. But I don't think things should ever be allowed to get to the point where people are routinely harassed and perturbed by hateful, vile or obscene expressions, whether words or images.
You are asking humans to not be human. Again, maybe if you had a very homogeneous culture it could happen. But look at what's happening in Scandinavia, as Kad will certainly open his mouth about it.
Quote:
This is pure revisionism - it is wishful thinking to think that what we regard as politically liberating measures had purely, or even primarily positive effects. To run with the UK example - the expansion of the franchise to ordinary burghers in Scotland after the 1690 Revolution meant that the more tolerant Royalist politicians were replaced by aggressive, populist Presbyterian firebrands that ushered in a wave of witch-hunts and anti-Catholic measures. You might try and argue that it works in the long-term, but that's impossible to judge when things are blurred by so many other factors.
So the right thing to do would have been to deny the burghers the right to have representation, the right to vote?
Quote:
My problem is that a very ideologically-driven core are pushing this radical libertarian-esque approach to free speech and government intervention as if it is somehow the 'true' Western, Enlightened approach. The truth is that free speech was originally concerned with basic political and religious expression, and was regarded as an entirely separate matter from laws regarding obscenities and other things that these modern radicals are trying to normalize.
I don't agree with that at all. Taking an example from US history, the election of 1800 between Adams and Jefferson was very vitriolic. Jefferson was a negro-lover and Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." For the most part, early American politicians were content with allowing this since they considered it under the sphere of freedom of the press, they did not have the narrow view of free speech you are suggesting.
